visionary Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 Also, **** Spencer trying to cut a deal for that ass hole Gallagher..... Should have let that board play itself out..... Disgusting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted November 25, 2019 Author Share Posted November 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, killerbee99 said: Also, **** Spencer trying to cut a deal for that ass hole Gallagher..... Should have let that board play itself out..... Disgusting We don’t know if this is true yet. Spencer has gone on record in an official letter that this is due to him not following the WH orders to let Gallagher keep his Trident. Trump’s tweet is in line with this. The WH/Esper story of Spencer offering a secret deal is still off the record and none of them have provided an on-the-record statement. Considering how much this WH lies, I will wait. Both scenarios in this story are rotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skintime Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 Further illustration that anything trump touches he ****s up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 It was bull**** when he pardoned the ****er. Now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 11 minutes ago, PCS said: It was bull**** when he pardoned the ****er. Now? Gallagher wasn't pardoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/11/25/secdef-explains-why-navy-secretary-was-fired-over-double-talk-in-seal-trident-controversy/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=Socialflow+NAV&utm_medium=social Quote After President Donald Trump announced Nov. 15 that he would restore the chief petty officer rank of a SEAL accused of war crimes earlier this year, senior Pentagon leadership agreed that they would convene a board of Navy chiefs to decide whether Chief Special Warfare Operator Eddie Gallagher would get to keep his coveted trident qualification pin that signifies his official status as a SEAL as he prepared for retirement later this month. But unbeknownst to Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, Esper told reporters at the Pentagon on Monday, Navy Secretary Richard Spencer had gone behind their backs to broker a deal with the White House that would see Gallagher retire with his SEAL trident pin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 16 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/11/25/secdef-explains-why-navy-secretary-was-fired-over-double-talk-in-seal-trident-controversy/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=Socialflow+NAV&utm_medium=social So, I'm a little confused. Spencer was supposedly trying to broker this deal to stop Trump from giving a direct order regarding Gallagher's status and interfering with a review board process right? But according to the proposed deal, isn't Spencer essentially offering to do that so that Trump wouldn't have to? And wouldn't that have also raised a big stink given the public scrutiny on the case? Apparently Esper said Spencer admitted to the discussion of the proposal with the White House. Has Spencer said anything publically about this since the firing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 I wonder what the Navy servicemembers as a whole think about these dudes. I'd sincerely hope they dont see the POTUS interference here as positive, considering the overwhelming evidence and testimonies of other servicemembers against Gallagher (and others). It seems like this is a clear example of only 1 side being the side to be on. But I've been fooled by the military before. Edit..need to remember to ask my dad what he thinks. Probably a different view though than the current servicemembers, especially the enlisted ones... (pls don't read that as a knock, anyone). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 1 14 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: I wonder what the Navy service members as a whole think about these dudes. I'd sincerely hope they dont see the POTUS interference here as positive, considering the overwhelming evidence and testimonies of other servicemembers against Gallagher (and others). Me too. Sounds like they stood up to hold him accountable for his crimes and honor their oath. Also curious how the story of this spreads through the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 35 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: I wonder what the Navy servicemembers as a whole think about these dudes. I'd sincerely hope they dont see the POTUS interference here as positive, considering the overwhelming evidence and testimonies of other servicemembers against Gallagher (and others). It seems like this is a clear example of only 1 side being the side to be on. But I've been fooled by the military before. Edit..need to remember to ask my dad what he thinks. Probably a different view though than the current servicemembers, especially the enlisted ones... (pls don't read that as a knock, anyone). The only thing he was found guilty of (by service members) was a inappropriate picture....so obviously it is less than clear https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Jury-to-Decide-Navy-SEALs-Punishment-for-Posing-With-Corpse-512168961.html interestingly those testifying against him ALSO posed for the same picture, but gained immunity by testifying against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 Yeah it was just an inappropriate picture that's all.... Of course, twa would defend this ****.... The asshole got lucky he skated in the murder charge because they couldn't prove if him knifing the Afghani killed the poor **** or the shot in the neck had finished the job already..... The guy will rot in hell for that ****... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 53 minutes ago, twa said: The only thing he was found guilty of (by service members) was a inappropriate picture....so obviously it is less than clear https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Jury-to-Decide-Navy-SEALs-Punishment-for-Posing-With-Corpse-512168961.html interestingly those testifying against him ALSO posed for the same picture, but gained immunity by testifying against him. OJ was acquitted too. Doesn't mean he didn't knife Nicole and Ron Goldman or that there wasn't overwhelming evidence against OJ. **** happens in trials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 40 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: OJ was acquitted too. Doesn't mean he didn't knife Nicole and Ron Goldman or that there wasn't overwhelming evidence against OJ. **** happens in trials. I wonder if Gallagher will later cash in by writing a tell all book called "If I Were A Remorseless Psychopath Who Murdered Innocent People In Wartime." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 2 hours ago, The Evil Genius said: OJ was acquitted too. Doesn't mean he didn't knife Nicole and Ron Goldman or that there wasn't overwhelming evidence against OJ. **** happens in trials. the poster was asking about service members opinions, the opinions of the ones that heard the evidence should matter...right? or are we just gonna ignore them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 Isn’t posing with dead soldiers against the Geneva convention as well? Or, because these are “enemy combatant” do we get away with treating them horribly on a technicality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 We lost some respect after Abu Graib(sp?). That was horrible and so is this "situation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 Just saw that on twitter. This is a never ending trough of **** we're being force fed from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skin'emAlive Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 4 hours ago, twa said: The only thing he was found guilty of (by service members) was a inappropriate picture....so obviously it is less than clear https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Jury-to-Decide-Navy-SEALs-Punishment-for-Posing-With-Corpse-512168961.html interestingly those testifying against him ALSO posed for the same picture, but gained immunity by testifying against him. One of the direct witnesses was given full immunity to testify, where he promptly changed his entire story to protect Gallagher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 41 minutes ago, Skin'emAlive said: One of the direct witnesses was given full immunity to testify, where he promptly changed his entire story to protect Gallagher. so was he lying before (when they held charges over his head) or later when he was free to speak w/o consequence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: Isn’t posing with dead soldiers against the Geneva convention as well? Or, because these are “enemy combatant” do we get away with treating them horribly on a technicality? I believe it is. Though there is apparently some leeway from what I was reading earlier today. Such as a dead body being in the background of a combat zone photo. Either way if this were the corpse of a US soldier instead Im sure Trump and his cultists wouldn't have a problem with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 6 hours ago, The Evil Genius said: I wonder what the Navy servicemembers as a whole think about these dudes. We support the orders of our superiors. Beyond that, we shut up (or at least we are supposed to). 2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: Isn’t posing with dead soldiers against the Geneva convention as well? Or, because these are “enemy combatant” do we get away with treating them horribly on a technicality? I actually went and looked it up the other day. From what I read, it totally depends on context. 32 minutes ago, clietas said: I believe it is. Though there is apparently some leeway from what I was reading earlier today. Such as a dead body being in the background of a combat zone photo. From what I read, it was something along the lines of (very loose paraphrasing because I'm not gonna go dig it up again) if it is done with the purpose of fouling the corpse. What exactly that means seemed all very vague. But I dont think any other country has even mentioned wanting him charged with war crimes. So there's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.